Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

originally posted by: 200Plus
I hate to be off topic and for that I do apologize.

I always see the same arguments used in certain threads and is has me genuinely wondering something about the "left", especially those that know history (which I assume many here do).

Do many of the left believe Alfonso Capone's only crime was tax evasion simply because that was the only crime he was convicted of?

Is conviction the only measurement of guilt to those of a certain political persuasion, or is it a convenient caltrop to throw before opponents?

Those same people believe OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron just because he was found not guilty criminally, even though he was found responsible for the deaths in a civil trial.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No. I do not work in either capacity.

Correct. I was neither paid by a candidate nor did I volounteer. I worked at the event, that was held by Sanders, but my work was not for the campaign.

and now all of a sudden you claim you work for Sanders. I don't buy it since you said you dont work for a candidate in either a paid or unpaid capacity. Were you lying to us then or are you lying to us now?

I did not claim that. When asked, I clarified even further.

Me thinks you no understand what is being said. Or you are desperate to catch me on something that you can't catch me on.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Point that part out in the Espionage Act section I quoted. Ive read it a few times and what you typed is not in the statute.

It is in the second part you quoted. Did you not read what you posted?

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general) An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others. Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntarydisregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

Knowingly and willingly, just like the source I posted had said.

An interesting read, though I hope this is not going to happen:

Our inside sources say that 3 days before the Convention, Mrs. Clinton will be indicted. Then she will be called into a courtroom where she will plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of Failure to handle classified documents properly, more or less the same deal Petraeus got. She will pay a $10,000 fine, do no time in jail (Petraeus didn't). She will become one of many millions of Americans convicted of a misdemeanor, who then goes on with her life

source

Crooked Clintons!

a reply to: introvert

Wow... you trying to walk that back is at best Michael Jackson level.

You claimed here you work for Bernie. The post in that thread said you dont work for either candidate.

What you say cannot be trusted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I never worked for any campaign except for Richard Nixon back in the seventies. I was 14. I handed out buttons.
WTF are you talking about?

a reply to: introvert

Did she make the decision to use a private email server knowingly and willfully?

That decision is the gross negligence because doing so did not demonstrate "the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."

By opting not to use official government provided secure means of transmission, she demonstrated gross negligence.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Wow... you trying to walk that back is at best Michael Jackson level.

You claimed here you work for Bernie. The post in that thread said you dont work for either candidate.

What you say cannot be trusted.

That is not what I said. I realize what I posted may have looked that way and when asked I clarified.

You are trying to make something out of nothing.

At least Butcherguy asked for clarification before making himself look like a fool.

a reply to: introvert

Again - you need to read the post.

Thats from a definition of negligence and has no bearing on the elements needed to violate that section of the espionage act.

The bolded part was key to you understanding the definition. Let me help -

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general)

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Did she make the decision to use a private email server knowingly and willfully?

That decision is the gross negligence because doing so did not demonstrate "the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."

By opting not to use official government provided secure means of transmission, she demonstrated gross negligence.

Apparently, legal experts in such matters disagree.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: 200Plus

In our system we have due process.

Belief cannot be used to convict someone. You have to prove it.

Denniston went on to explain the difference between “factual guilt” and “legal innocence,” a distinction that a number of commentators have drawn in the aftermath of the not-guilty verdict: Just because you’re found “not guilty” doesn’t mean that you’re “innocent.”

blog.constitutioncenter.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra

If it has no bearing, why did you post it?

As my other source claimed, intent is key.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No that's wrong. You saying she broke the law is incorrect because that has yet to be proven. Geez is that so hard to understand?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

I never worked for any campaign except for Richard Nixon back in the seventies. I was 14. I handed out buttons.
WTF are you talking about?

I was pointing out that its out of line to fail to disclose you work for a candidate. It was in reference to introverts posts and was directed at you because of you making the out of line comment.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Ok. You have to be found guilty to go to jail.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

I never worked for any campaign except for Richard Nixon back in the seventies. I was 14. I handed out buttons.
WTF are you talking about?

I was pointing out that its out of line to fail to disclose you work for a candidate. It was in reference to introverts posts and was directed at you because of you making the out of line comment.

Ya, I didn't work for any campaign. You got caught in your own desire to find that "gotcha" moment.

Childish.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Sorry I can't do a thing about your comprehension levels.
Ill say it slow.
The...news...said...she...has...not...recused...herself...

a reply to: Bedlam

Your cute.
You think I don't know.
Ill leave you to that kitten. Carry on.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No she didn't. It's all over the freakin news.

a reply to: introvert

BS.. you got caught and are trying to obfuscate now.